tv [untitled] October 4, 2010 8:00pm-8:30pm PST
supervisor maxwell: welcome to land use. i am the chair sophie maxwell, and i am joined by eric mar and supervisor david chiu. there is also an overflow room set of. you will still be allowed to speak. to make sure you have an opportunity. madam clerk, you have some announcements to make? clerk somera: please turn off
any cell phones. items will appear on the october 19 agenda unless otherwise stated. supervisor maxwell: i went to thank our clerk, alisa somera, and that would to start by saying that items 6 and 7 will be continued, so if there is anyone here for those, they will be continued. do we have a date certain on that, madam clerk? clerk: october 18. supervisor maxwell: and i believe there is one committee item to go out. for item number eight, it will go tomorrow. all right, madam clerk, item one, please. clerk somera: item number one is
a zoning map the amendment for 17th street to conform with a lot line adjustment. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is a simple correction for a rezoning that happened as part of the eastern neighborhood plan. . the error happened at that time picasso -- happened at that time. it was out -- at 1717 17th street, and i will put these matters on the screen so people will have an idea of what we're talking about today. the old lot lines are there, and they were made to be more regular. the other two would remain more or less the same.
and they were appropriately rezoned. the district changed, and there are very specific tight controls for the development that we want to see for the parcel. the umu districts usually have extra height on the ground floor, like 68, in the regionand the -- and the pdr of those and in in -- those ending in things like 5. 48 on the triangular portion, 45 on the regular, whereas they should have done it differently. the height is all the same. it is just the configuration needs to map the zoning map, and
that is what the planning commission recommended an you approved. supervisor maxwell: thank you. colleagues, any questions or comments? any public comment on this item? seeing none, then public comment is closed. [gavel] without objection, so moved. madam clerk, item two. clerk somera: item two, and the area plan impact fee and jobs housing linkage programs. >> planning department staff. the action before the committee today is a continuation of the item from last week involving an ordinance to amend the planning code. we discussed the items in detail last week. with the supervisor's office, this week i would like to read
several tentative amendments which are being proposed at this time. these technical amendments are all contained in the handout that i have given you and love for the public at the area towards the door. -- and left for the public. the first technical amendment is regarding the short title, changes to the planning code amendment, area plan impact fee and jobs housing linkagenee program, adding the word "amendments" and striking the word" modifications." the second change is to the long title. we will articulate the purpose of the legislation. as such, it will read it to be amending the planning code related to fees, in rincon hill, market and octavia, eastern neighborhoods, and
balboa park, better recognizing the impact of conditions of the site impacted by the area plan impact fees and jobs housing linkage fee to promote adapter reviews in the impact fees associated with the note of legitimization. supervisor maxwell: you go forward, it is this the -- before you go forward, is busy -- is this the jazz? that is not one of the amendments that i have proposed. these are from the city attorney's office. of easily, the supervisors can make other amendments as they
see fit. -- obviously, the supervisors can make other amendments. we can discuss anything else. ok. supervisor maxwell: and then we will come back to that, because i want to discuss it because there might be public comment. >> the third change is in section 1 79.1. -- 179.1. this is to show that the jobs moved to the planning code, the jobs housing linkage fee is now in article 4. we had the legislation that moved all of the impact fees to article 4. also, the definitions themselves are defined, and in section éza7w+é
word and we corrected that word. in anotherswe change a reference to show that the reference was 413.6a, 313.6 a. and we also want to have charged on gross square feet as opposed to net. -- gross square feet of the post to -- as opposed to net, to keep the change revenue neutral. a special use district was reduced from $8 per square foot to $7.20 per square foot. the neighborhood and transit districts, it was reduced for the net square foot. in addition, we apply the credit for all of the area
impact fees. supervisor maxwell: for those of you who are standing, there is and because of our fire code, but aha-- i will have to ask those of you who do not have a seat to go into the chamber. >> in another section, we are deleting language aboutefú pubc up against in facilities district. the change of just mentioned it and another our show behind you. i believe it was not as straightforward. section 4.18.5, and 21, similar to what i discussed, city
requirements for public -- project applicants, and in another section, a table identifying how the market a batavia -- the market octavia is affected pourri putting -- we are putting this table back in the code. and that is my complete list of proposed amendments at this time. supervisor maxwell: ok, then i think it is time to talk a little bit about the amendment, which provides an exemption for a single project in the market octavia planned area for the jazz center. and they did this out the last minute. can you give us an idea of the
rationale to exempt this? it includes all commercial uses, and there is no reference to non-profit or for-profit status. >> there was kind of a mini grand parroting -- grandparenting. without these changes, it would not be subject to the market up to the impact fees, and these changes would be subject to those fees, so this was an example to exempt them. >> i remember when we did that, and there was a long debate and discussion about which projects would fall into that region supervisor maxwell: -- supervisor maxwell: i remember when we did that, there was a long debate and discussion about which projects would fall into
that. i am not comfortable with that. and the code does provide an in kind provision for projects for those that are reducing benefits on their own. they get a credit, but no one other than this project has an outright exemption. therefore, colleagues, other than to say at the last minute that the planning commission did that, in the was a process we went through, in be exempted any other projects in eastern neighborhood, i would offer an amendment to remove section 3 of the ordinance, in section three includes the exemption -- and section three includes the exemption without any public input other than the planning commission decided in the last minute to do. so i offer that amendment.
supervisor mar: i am happy to second that. supervisor maxwell: thank you, supervisor mar. ok, why do we not open this up for public comment? debra. san francisco jazz? deborah maybe in the other room. anybody else? deborah? oh, great. come on in. >> supervisors, sorry for the run from the other room. i am representing sf jazz, and i wanted to clarify the purpose and understanding and discussion that went on with the planning commission regarding this exemption. as the planners had stated, the sf jazz was fully entitled and had been in the pipeline for several years in the entitlements to the process, and
under the existing regulations, they would have only paid fees on their commercial and retail use aspect and not on their educational component. if and entertainment components -- and entertainment components. the planning commissioners recognized when this was put forward that while the changes the planning department were proposing were quite broad in order to correct many technical and discrepancies with various impact fee legislation, they had not initially in reading through that legislation understood the impact it would have had on the nonprofit cultural and educational institution, which we thought and suggested to the planning department quite punitive because these would go
to 10 times what the fees were that we had anticipated paying under the current legislation. supervisor maxwell: i guess -- thank you. i guess the staff understands all of this, and they do not recommend this, and so for me, when i look at staff in their understanding of things, i think there are ways to get around it. when we start exempting things, i just really, without having more discussion, especially knowing what we went through, we had dates and times and all of those things that we went through when we exempted projects, and i just do not feel comfortable that that is enough for me at this time. thank you. all right, then, colleagues, on the amendment, without objection. [gavel]
and then on the item without objection? so moved. [gavel] next item, please. clerk somera: a number three, the planning code preservation, rehabilitation, and maintenance of preservation lots on 680 california st., oil st. mary's cathedral. -- old st. mary's cathedral. supervisor maxwell: supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: thank you. this was to resolve many issues and tdr's that were brought before us. i am happy to support what is before us. i do have some cleanup and technical amendments that are deputy city attorney brought to my attention this morning.
let me run through those. none of these changes substance of what we understand as far as the language that we moved through. on lines four through seven, we are we inserting some accidentally deleted language. in another area, there is a cross-reference. page seven is amended to require a copy of a statement of eligibility to be given to the zoning administrator at the planning department. page 17, 22, there is an extraneous word "sold," which was deleted, and on another page, we added the letter "s" on a word. these are non substantive amendments, so i would like to ask us to amend it and then passes out of the committee to begin trail the of the legislation we have to consider at the full board in two weeks after the holiday.
supervisor maxwell: comment. >> my name is george williams. previously in testimony before this body and in a letter to you, i expressed concerns about the impact of this legislation on the tdr scheme and to provide funds to rehabilitate buildings. we think the changes that have been made are very workable, and we are fully supportive of the legislation. supervisor maxwell: great, thank you. supervisor chiu: thank you. supervisor maxwell: any further public comment? seeing none, colleagues? [gavel] without objection? [gavel] madam clerk, there will be a continuance on item number four
until october 18. however, if you are here, and you will not be able to come back at that time, you're welcome to of public comment on item number four at this time. anyone for item number four? all right, then seeing none, item number four will be continued until october 18. [gaevl] as i mentioned, item number 6 and 7 will be continued, so item number five. hit --clerk somera: item number four, the planning code and administrative code amending inclusionary housing ordinance. item five, an ordinance amending standards for restaurant food sold accompanied by toys or other youth focused
incentive items. supervisor maxwell: we heard this last week, and then it was continued. supervisor mar? supervisor mar: last week, i read them out, and they were really in response to some suggestions, and we feel that it strengthens the ordinance. i wanted to acknowledge that the last meeting, we heard from dozens of parents, pediatricians, public health officials, community based organizations, testifying in support of the legislation. i also won in to note acknowledge -- to acknowledge people who love been fighting for health year,raoñ more livabe communities, as well -- who have been fighting. we also have heard from the national level who have been active on corporate responsibility and corporate accountability levels around the country, as well, so i wanted to
make knowledge the strong support at the last hearing. i also wanted to just again reiterate that this is a modest step forward in san francisco to address what many, officials acknowledged at the last meeting is an obesity epidemic in san francisco. i have repeated to a number of reporters that i have been talking to frequently that 1/4 adults are obese, and some say it is one in three, but for children my daughter's age, she is 10, obesity has quadrupled since the invention of an attachment of a toy to meals in fast-food restaurants. some have tripled, but for my
daughter's age, as i said, it has tripled. some have shown a causal connection between fast-food restaurants in particular, especially in low-income urban communities, where there are few deserts' in many areas around the country. been there are food deserts' -- there are food deserts. a $5.50 billion industry which uses millions per year to market those so-called incentive items are something that we are assessing, as well. our work is modest, and i will repeat that again. it is modest. it is a modest effort with responsibilities the restaurant's new nutritional standards if they want to attach
a toy or an item with a meal. really, we are targeting fatty, sugar, an unhealthy foods, and we are proactively promoting better food choices for parents and for food choices in their neighborhoods and communities. in san francisco alone, we have estimated that it is about a $900 million price tag in health-care costs in lost productivity for obesity in the city, and there are other national studies that shows that " this leads to $147 billion of a drain on our national budget, as well, so our modest ordinance is really addressing basic nutritional standards and cutting back sugar, salt, and high chemical content from our children's food.
i also wanted to a knowledge that colleagues will be getting letters and communication from others, but one person who could not be here today is dr. carmen from one of the oldest and largest public health associations in this country, and she kind of has an important letter that has been distributed to all of us. also today, we have other voices from the oakland prevention institute and other groups that are supported by the robert wood association. we also have a representative of the usda, the american heart association, and, again, parents and corporate responsibility and accountability leaders from around the bay area, as well. i just wanted to say that i have appreciated the comments in the input from my colleagues but
have also listened to all different perspectives that have been brought to us, so i am today as we move this code for the forward with a positive reclamation -- recommendation today. thank you, chairman maxwell. supervisor maxwell: do you have a list of speakers? supervisor chiu: yes, i have some, but i wanted to just start i sp in advance. can i just say that from the usda, we have a person, and also a small-business seller from sellers' market, and a parent leader, lesley, and the last person before i call up more is rebecca mccurdy, so those4b four first.
q÷miss? >> yes, thank you. i want to say that i work for the usda, but i cannot speak on behalf of the usda. i am here as a concerned citizen and a trained professional. i does want to say that i support the ordinance, and i want to start off by talking about this chart -- i just want to say that i support the ordinance. it is the sensibly comparing happy meals with meals eaten at home, and it shows that they are very comparable, but what i want to point out is that the star really only talks about calories, sodium, fat, saturated fat, and it does not discuss at all vitamins or minerals or fiber content in the meals, so it really does not compare fully the meals that children eat at home and the meals that
they can get in fast food. the second point that i want to make is that currently i feel that the social norm is that happy meals or fast-food meals are an acceptableñr meal to give your child, at lunch or dinner, and i think this ordinance is trying to change that social norm so that the norm is that the healthier choice, the except when to give to children, and the un healthier choice becomes
the exmú(t%j children the un healthier choice -- unhealthier choice, and it becomes a treat. san francisco as the food police. supervisor chiu: thank you so much. miss? >> my name is leslie. i am the mother of two children, and my family was in the district, in my children attend school. i would like to talk about the impact of monitoring -- marketing and healthy -- marketing unhealthy fast food to children. this undermines my efforts. my children see advertisements on public transit, bus shelters, billboards, and sponsorship announcements on public television. they tell my children that the experience of eating this unhealthy food and taking home